Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

2/?

In Kumbakaonam Nageswaran thirumanjana veedhi, there was a buddha statue called bagavarishi.

Anything is impossible. But for it to be accepted, proof is required, since in this case taking the source as Aptavaakya most *specifically* does not apply.

The Nigandu says that Buddha was called by the name Vinayaka. In later periods many Buddha temples were converted as Vinayaka temples.

No instances of "Vinayaka temples" that were Buddhist originally (of "Buddha the Vinayaka") and taken over by Hindus for Vinayakar (Ganesha) are given in the matter-of-fact type statements made.



And why assume Vinayaka is exclusively a title of Buddha. Or even originally? Vinayaka is certainly Ganapati's proper name. (And Temples to him by this name are not at all just in TN, as there are Hindu Kovils to Vinayaka - i.e. Ganapati by that name - elsewhere in Bharatam.)

But just like how Buddha also came to be called Heramba by some Buddhists (much later) does not mean that temples to Heramba (Ganesha of that name) must "therefore have been Buddhist originally and taken by Hindus for their God Ganapati", the same holds for the Hindu Vinaayaka.





Interestingly:

- from what I can make out of the MW dictionary - which is only useful here in that it gives the source - it seems to point out that this word as name of Ganesha was apparently used by RiShi Yagnyavalkya among others. (Unless I am reading the entry or the source abbreviation wrong...), just like the same dictionary says that Heramba as the Name of Ganesha occurs in the MBh itself.

- now the same MW dictionary, also eventually lists that Vinayaka is also used for "a Buddha". Similarly, MW dictionary entry for Heramba also eventually lists that this name (Heramba) came to also be used for "a particular Buddha".

Not THE Buddha, but "a (particular) Buddha". That is, it sounds a lot like it's talking about Mahayana Buddhism. I.e. a late development.

And so: the direction of travel of both these names (qua chronology at least)... is from Hindu Gods to Buddhism.



I have heard other temples in Kanchi claimed by Buddhists (never with evidence though), but not the Kamakshi one:

………..Originally Kamatchi amman temple was a Buddhist temple .

Meanwhile:

1. Kaanchi Kamaakshee is one of the Shakti Peetha-s.

2. The Kovil is *the* Shakti Kovil for all of Kanchipuram.

3. The KamakShee Kovil is in the Somaskanda formation with her husband's at Ekambranatha Kovil, with the Kumara Kottam Kovil in exactly the centre of the line connecting the parent Kovils. There are cross-references to each other between all three.

4. Also, there's the little detail that Kanchipuram itself is built as the Yantra of Lalita, where Kanchi KamaakShee Kovil's Garbha Gruham is the *Bindu* of the Yantra that is Kanchi.



The moolamoorty of Kamakshee (being Lalitha) is typically Hindu, and its history - very, exclusively Hindoo - is well-known. Also KamakShee Kovil - being a shakti peetha - has a hoary history. (Far predating Shankaracharya's involvement there. Much before him*, LS and I think LT are also supposed to be given here, and the two Rishis thereof have their Marks at the Kovil as well. * Also seen in how the commentary on the LT is oft-attributed to Shankara BP, which itself implies that it well predates him, and was a long established text at that time.)



Also, the major ancient *Hindu* Kovils - in TN at any rate - are generally built in very particular ways: the entire Temples represent the very bodies of the Gods (Hindu Kovils themselves are therefore worshipped as moolamoorties) and are related to Hindu Yoga. The Hinduness of these Kovils - in their very construction and layout - is easily demonstrated.